When messages are %RESCANed hpt doesn't use the __ftsc_date field from the Squish message base, but the 2-second precision DOS date. Which means some messages (~50%) are exported with the time one second off. Some tosser's dupe checkers might fail ...

---
* Origin: . (2:280/464.47)

Hello Oli!

30 Jan 21, Oli wrote to All:

When messages are %RESCANed hpt doesn't use the __ftsc_date field from
the Squish message base, but the 2-second precision DOS date. Which
means some messages (~50%) are exported with the time one second off.

I've never seen uneven timestamps in my editor. Hell, at the moment of writing i see 12:43:49 in the header on the from/to lines. But after saving the mail it switched to 12:43:48, lucky me. ;-)

As far as i remember squish does have a 2 seconds resolution. But i don't know why. If i do not see further than my nose i would say 2 second resolution is the standard and if you have uneven timestamps in your msgbase than that is the bug.

Some tosser's dupe checkers might fail ...

Is this speculation/theory or could you name a real issue?

Regards

Kai

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7
* Origin: Monobox (2:240/77)

Kai wrote (2021-02-01):

When messages are %RESCANed hpt doesn't use the __ftsc_date field
from the Squish message base, but the 2-second precision DOS date.
Which means some messages (~50%) are exported with the time one
second off.

I've never seen uneven timestamps in my editor. Hell, at the moment of writing i see 12:43:49 in the header on the from/to lines. But after saving the mail it switched to 12:43:48, lucky me. ;-)

Your messages are dupe save ;).

As far as i remember squish does have a 2 seconds resolution. But i don't know why. If i do not see further than my nose i would say 2 second resolution is the standard and if you have uneven timestamps in your msgbase than that is the bug.

The DOS time format uses a 2 seconds resolution. The creation and received date is stored has DOS time in the Squish message base. Usually you don't see any uneven times in your message editor, but in Golded you can hit I and look at the hexdump of the message header. There you should see the original date in ASCII (only in a Squish base, JAM is different). It's stored in a field called __ftsc_date.

Some tosser's dupe checkers might fail ...

Is this speculation/theory or could you name a real issue?

This is what other nodes have reported and I have no reason to doubt it. Don't you think there are tossers out there which believe that messages with different time stamps are not the same? But it really doesn't matter, because per Squish specification the __ftsc_date should be used on export (rescan). What would be the benefit of not using the exact time when it's available? (hpt does store the original time in __ftsc_date, it just ignores it on export).

---
* Origin: . (2:280/464.47)

Hello Oli!

03 Feb 21, Oli wrote to Kai Richter:

The XMSG structure has the following format:

Thanks, you found the XMSG definition i was looking for.

I don't doubt that the problem exist but for fault confirmation
and trouble shooting it is easier to know the software in use.

hpt does it wrong. I tested it. What else is there to trouble shoot?

The other side of the medal. As said i'm no coder and my search for hpt found this one:

https://github.com/huskyproject/hpt/search?q=__ftsc_date&type=

src/scan.c
96 msg->destAddr.point = xmsg.dest.point;
97 strcpy((char *)msg->datetime, (char *)xmsg.__ftsc_date);
98 xstrcat(&(msg->subjectLine), (char *)xmsg.subj);

This looks like the xmsg.* is the squish base message.
It looks like the ftsc date is overwritten by some copy -> wrong, i'm no coder.

https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstring/strcpy/

char * strcpy ( char * destination, const char * source );

Unlike usual copy the C++ strcpy works reversed, the scan.c of hpt get the original squish base ftsc data and uses it for the datetime field.

It's just a simple bug ...

If it is it would be fixed already.
You reported this one a year ago, don't you?

My knowledge does end here. It was interesting but i can't help you further.

It only affects systems that use a Squish database and have downlinks
that do a %RESCAN.

And it does apply to mails without msgid only. Good luck.

Regards

Kai

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7
* Origin: Monobox (2:240/77)

Kai wrote (2021-02-03):

It's just a simple bug ...

If it is it would be fixed already.
You reported this one a year ago, don't you?

I don't know why it doesn't get fixed. Maybe nobody wants to touch that part of the code anymore. A project where critical bugs doesn't get fixed anymore is kind of abandoned.

---
* Origin: . (2:280/464.47)

10 Feb 21 09:56, you wrote to Kai Richter:

It's just a simple bug ...

If it is it would be fixed already.
You reported this one a year ago, don't you?

I don't know why it doesn't get fixed. Maybe nobody wants to touch that part of the code anymore. A project where critical bugs doesn't get
fixed anymore is kind of abandoned.

I suspect the patch below fixes this, but I've not tested it.

It's also necessary to verify it doesn't break when rescanning *.MSG and JAM bases.

diff --git a/src/scanarea.c b/src/scanarea.c
index 60ec71bf..8926aa30 100644
-+- a/src/scanarea.c
+++ b/src/scanarea.c
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ void makeMsg(HMSG hmsg, XMSG xmsg, s_message * msg, s_area * echo, int action)
msg->destAddr.point = xmsg.dest.point;
msg->attributes = xmsg.attr & ~MSGLOCAL; /* msg should not have MSGLOCAL bit set */

- sc_time((union stamp_combo *)&(xmsg.date_written), (char *)msg->datetime); + strcpy((char *)msg->datetime, (char *) xmsg.__ftsc_date);
xstrcat(&msg->toUserName, (char *)xmsg.to);
xstrcat(&msg->fromUserName, (char *)xmsg.from);
xstrcat(&msg->subjectLine, (char *)xmsg.subj);

--- GoldED+/BSD 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Blizzard of Ozz, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (3:633/267)

andrew wrote (2021-02-10):

I suspect the patch below fixes this, but I've not tested it.

It's also necessary to verify it doesn't break when rescanning *.MSG and JAM bases.

- sc_time((union stamp_combo *)&(xmsg.date_written), (char *)msg->datetime);
+ strcpy((char *)msg->datetime, (char *) xmsg.__ftsc_date);

What happens if xmsg.__ftsc_date is empty? Local messages don't have an __ftsc_date and it could also be missing for other reasons (messages converted from another message base format, copied/moved in a message editor or tossed by a tosser that doesn't copy the __ftsc_date).

---
* Origin: . (2:280/464.47)

Hello Oli,

Wednesday February 10 2021, Oli wrote to Kai Richter:

It's just a simple bug ...

If it is it would be fixed already.
You reported this one a year ago, don't you?

I don't know why it doesn't get fixed. Maybe nobody wants to touch
that part of the code anymore. A project where critical bugs doesn't
get fixed anymore is kind of abandoned.

So, where is a pull request from you? I don't see it.

As to me, I have a different view on what is critical and what is not so critical. I have a long list of what should be done in Husky and I pick the items from the list according to my idea of which item is more important to me. I may also pick a somewhat less important item if it requires a little time. And I have my life besides Fidonet, particularly I still have a job despite the fact that I am 73 y/o. So I cannot work for Fidonet full time, but only when I have some time for it.

Michael

... node (at) f1042 (dot) ru
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Moscow, Russia (2:5020/1042)

10 Feb 21 11:04, you wrote to me:

I suspect the patch below fixes this, but I've not tested it.

It's also necessary to verify it doesn't break when rescanning
*.MSG and JAM bases.

- sc_time((union stamp_combo *)&(xmsg.date_written), (char
*)msg->datetime); + strcpy((char *)msg->datetime, (char *)
xmsg.__ftsc_date);

What happens if xmsg.__ftsc_date is empty? Local messages don't have an __ftsc_date and it could also be missing for other reasons (messages converted from another message base format, copied/moved in a message editor or tossed by a tosser that doesn't copy the __ftsc_date).

Good point. But it's easy to test for that condition.

if (*xmsg.__ftsc_date == '\0')
{
/* __ftsc_date is empty, so use xmsg.date_written */
sc_time( ...
}
else
{
/* use xmsg.__ftsc_date */
strcpy( ...
}

--- GoldED+/BSD 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Blizzard of Ozz, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (3:633/267)

andrew wrote (2021-02-10):

10 Feb 21 11:04, you wrote to me:

What happens if xmsg.__ftsc_date is empty? Local messages don't
have an __ftsc_date and it could also be missing for other reasons
(messages converted from another message base format, copied/moved
in a message editor or tossed by a tosser that doesn't copy the
__ftsc_date).

Good point. But it's easy to test for that condition.

if (*xmsg.__ftsc_date == '\0')
{
/* __ftsc_date is empty, so use xmsg.date_written */
sc_time( ...
}
else
{
/* use xmsg.__ftsc_date */
strcpy( ...
}

That seems to work:

$ pktview outbound/23e73b00.pkt | grep 'Date'

Date and time : 09 Feb 21 13:14:00
Date and time : 09 Feb 21 06:31:33
Date and time : 09 Feb 21 05:08:19
Date and time : 07 Feb 21 18:49:35
Date and time : 10 Feb 21 03:55:02
Date and time : 10 Feb 21 14:58:42

Last one is a message with an empty __ftsc_date field.
(I had to use an hex editor, because Golded does write the __ftsc_date for messages created in the editor, even the Squish developer documentation strongly advises against it).

I haven't tested JAM and .MSG message bases.

---
* Origin: . (2:280/464.47)

Hello Oli!

10 Feb 21, Oli wrote to andrew clarke:

Date and time : 10 Feb 21 14:58:42

Last one is a message with an empty __ftsc_date field.
(I had to use an hex editor, because Golded does write the __ftsc_date
for messages created in the editor, even the Squish developer
documentation strongly advises against it).

__ftsc_date char[20] 218 FTS-0001 compatible date. Squish
applications should not access this
field directly. This field is used
exclusively by tossers and scanners
for preserving the original ASCII
message date.

If the first tosser/scanner touches the message, where does the original ASCII date comes from?

Regards

Kai

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7
* Origin: Monobox (2:240/77)

Michael wrote (2021-02-10):

I don't know why it doesn't get fixed. Maybe nobody wants to touch
that part of the code anymore. A project where critical bugs doesn't
get fixed anymore is kind of abandoned.

So, where is a pull request from you? I don't see it.

I'm not a hpt user and I'm not involved with the projects.

As to me, I have a different view on what is critical and what is not so critical. I have a long list of what should be done in Husky and I pick the items from the list according to my idea of which item is more important to me. I may also pick a somewhat less important item if it requires a little time. And I have my life besides Fidonet, particularly
I still have a job despite the fact that I am 73 y/o. So I cannot work
for Fidonet full time, but only when I have some time for it.

I didn't address you directly. Of course you are free to do with hpt / husky whatever you like and label bugs and todos as you wish.

hpt is a software that interacts with the network. When there is a bug that could cause problems in the network, I call that critical. That's my opinion, nothing more. It's an open source project, nobody have to do anything. But if these problems don't get fixed over an extended period of time, I don't think it's wrong to address it and remind people that they are using broken software. If people get annoyed by these reminders, there is an easy solution: fix the bugs that affects the network. Or don't and ignore it. But don't expect that people will not complain.

Btw, hunting down a bug, writing a bug report and testing the fixes is also time consuming.

---
* Origin: . (2:280/464.47)